Re: I have a DROID DNA. You have questions. Fire away!

Originally Posted by apollooff320

Let me get this straight...so when a site says something bad about the Droid DNA it shouldn't be trusted and it's a horrible site, but when you find a a site that gives a good review it's a awesome site and can be trusted? Come on ppl get real. The Verge is a respected website don't try to go around discrediting their information; because when they are posting good news on products you don't say crap until it's negative.

Every set of statistics has an outlier. Considering it's the first of it's kind allows us to draw that conclusion. The fact that it IS the Verge makes it interesting. However I would have preferred if someone else over there reviewed it.

Re: I have a DROID DNA. You have questions. Fire away!

Originally Posted by Darth Duane

The guy that did the Verge review constantly compared it to "His Iphone". Not "The Iphone" but HIS. I'll take his fan boy review with a grain of salt. EVERY other review says battery life is on par or better than the GS3, even the review Gizmodo just put up.

Re: I have a DROID DNA. You have questions. Fire away!

Re: I have a DROID DNA. You have questions. Fire away!

Originally Posted by zepfloyd

Engadget is out with their review, but they are awfully vague.

Yeah however they did say it will get through a workshift and give the phone props. Never touched on actually use for a user with lack of space on the memory HTC Droid DNA review -- Engadget. This is where I am hoping Phil covers in his review.

Re: I have a DROID DNA. You have questions. Fire away!

Originally Posted by whatwhat

Um, so you had the phone screen on for almost two hours and your battery life dropped from 40% to 18%. That's nothing to be happy about

So that would be like 2 hours of screen on would take 25% of your battery then 8 hours of screen on would drain your battery if fully charged right? I would argue that wasn't bad at all and pretty good.

Re: I have a DROID DNA. You have questions. Fire away!

Am I the only one that thinks everyone's going too far with the instantaneous gut reactions?
It feels like everyone is going way overboard with jumping to conclusions.

Here's what I've noticed so far:
People say that the battery life on the DNA is comparable to the SGS3. (On paper, this is reasonable; 2020mAh vs 2100 mAh, all else being equal, which it isn't.)
"Battery life" numbers are all over the place, with people constantly asking for "Screen on time" whenever anyone posts that the DNA has lasted over a day of "regular" use.
The phone appears to idle extremely well, and does not consume too much power, as evidenced by screenshots showing the power line as a very light plateau downward during "sleep" times.
By the time the phone runs out, the common number that emerges appears to be around 4 hours of "Screen on time."

The Verge:
DNA: 4h 25m HTC Droid DNA review | The Verge
SGS3: 4h 12m Samsung Galaxy S3 for Verizon: impressions and benchmarks | The Verge
Most people appear to be bashing this because it sounds ludicrously low.
However, pay attention to the points I outlined above - TheVerge appears to have reached this figure by running their benchmark on these phones. I would assume that the benchmark is the same for both phones. By the looks of the benchmark description, the screen should be on for the entire duration of this benchmark.

The big issue is that these numbers should not be compared across different sites! It is the trend that counts.
However, within the same review site, the numbers should be comparable, as they should be utilizing the same tests in as controlled a manner as possible.
The trend that I see is that the battery can and will last for over a day of moderate use, and if left idling, it will go on for even longer.
However, it appears using the phone drains its battery! (Sarcasm, in case it's broken for anyone.)

From these sources, it appears that under heavy use, the phone lasts about 4 hours worth of "Screen on time" regardless of whether it's all at once, or spread out over the course of a couple days.

People have thus far appear to be jumping down each others' throats for posting information that disagrees with their opinions.
Can we not just deal with the facts? And by facts, it means things that have been tested, and we have sources and numbers for. Not "facts" that we make up to support our arguments.

This phone is not for everyone. If super long battery life all at once matters, get the Razr HD MAXX. There's nothing else out that can beat the physics of a larger battery. If you absolutely must have the screen on and in heavy use for 20 of the 24 hours of each day without access to a charger, you have no real choice. HTC's "reason" for the 2020mAh battery can be debated for all eternity, but that isn't going to magically change the battery this phone ships with. It's also pointless because no one can call up HTC and ask them specifically why they did this, and get a straight answer. Everything is only our opinion on the matter. You learn pretty quickly in most hobbies that everything is a compromise, and the compromise happens to fit the usage model of the majority of the consumers/userbase.

If this conflicts with our vision, or usage models, then clearly, we were not the majority.

Finally, I would like to say that efficiency can make a difference, and it's not purely down to the mAh rating. It won't be super dramatic, but it does work.
For example, back during the early 2000's, when Intel was debuting its Pentium4 CPU, they were huge on higher clockspeed, and more GHz. AMD responded with the Athlon XP CPU's, which were clocked much lower, but because of efficiencies, wound up outperforming the P4's for a long time. This is an extreme example, but I wanted to point out that one specific numerical metric is not the only way to characterize the performance of a particular item.

Re: I have a DROID DNA. You have questions. Fire away!

Phil, remember me? I was the guy that leaked the Bionic details, you know all the accessories? So how bad is the keyboard? Can you replace it with a stock ICS keyboard? Or possibly the JB keyboard with out root? ( I know devs will have it once its rooted.)

Re: I have a DROID DNA. You have questions. Fire away!

Originally Posted by DarkScythe

Am I the only one that thinks everyone's going too far with the instantaneous gut reactions?
It feels like everyone is going way overboard with jumping to conclusions.

Here's what I've noticed so far:
People say that the battery life on the DNA is comparable to the SGS3. (On paper, this is reasonable; 2020mAh vs 2100 mAh, all else being equal, which it isn't.)
"Battery life" numbers are all over the place, with people constantly asking for "Screen on time" whenever anyone posts that the DNA has lasted over a day of "regular" use.
The phone appears to idle extremely well, and does not consume too much power, as evidenced by screenshots showing the power line as a very light plateau downward during "sleep" times.
By the time the phone runs out, the common number that emerges appears to be around 4 hours of "Screen on time."

The Verge:
DNA: 4h 25m HTC Droid DNA review | The Verge
SGS3: 4h 12m Samsung Galaxy S3 for Verizon: impressions and benchmarks | The Verge
Most people appear to be bashing this because it sounds ludicrously low.
However, pay attention to the points I outlined above - TheVerge appears to have reached this figure by running their benchmark on these phones. I would assume that the benchmark is the same for both phones. By the looks of the benchmark description, the screen should be on for the entire duration of this benchmark.

The big issue is that these numbers should not be compared across different sites! It is the trend that counts.
However, within the same review site, the numbers should be comparable, as they should be utilizing the same tests in as controlled a manner as possible.
The trend that I see is that the battery can and will last for over a day of moderate use, and if left idling, it will go on for even longer.
However, it appears using the phone drains its battery! (Sarcasm, in case it's broken for anyone.)

From these sources, it appears that under heavy use, the phone lasts about 4 hours worth of "Screen on time" regardless of whether it's all at once, or spread out over the course of a couple days.

People have thus far appear to be jumping down each others' throats for posting information that disagrees with their opinions.
Can we not just deal with the facts? And by facts, it means things that have been tested, and we have sources and numbers for. Not "facts" that we make up to support our arguments.

This phone is not for everyone. If super long battery life all at once matters, get the Razr HD MAXX. There's nothing else out that can beat the physics of a larger battery. If you absolutely must have the screen on and in heavy use for 20 of the 24 hours of each day without access to a charger, you have no real choice. HTC's "reason" for the 2020mAh battery can be debated for all eternity, but that isn't going to magically change the battery this phone ships with. It's also pointless because no one can call up HTC and ask them specifically why they did this, and get a straight answer. Everything is only our opinion on the matter. You learn pretty quickly in most hobbies that everything is a compromise, and the compromise happens to fit the usage model of the majority of the consumers/userbase.

If this conflicts with our vision, or usage models, then clearly, we were not the majority.

Finally, I would like to say that efficiency can make a difference, and it's not purely down to the mAh rating. It won't be super dramatic, but it does work.
For example, back during the early 2000's, when Intel was debuting its Pentium4 CPU, they were huge on higher clockspeed, and more GHz. AMD responded with the Athlon XP CPU's, which were clocked much lower, but because of efficiencies, wound up outperforming the P4's for a long time. This is an extreme example, but I wanted to point out that one specific numerical metric is not the only way to characterize the performance of a particular item.

Well stated. Though far too logical and well thought out to be accepted . Seriously though, you have articulated well how folks should treat these things. The over / under is 10 on how many here will actually though ! :-)

Re: I have a DROID DNA. You have questions. Fire away!

Re: I have a DROID DNA. You have questions. Fire away!

This is a tad bit off topic but I didn't want to start another thread but lets say we get the DNA, how long do we have if we want to trade it in for a Note2 etc? Last year they had a pretty large window to return the phone.

Re: I have a DROID DNA. You have questions. Fire away!

Re: I have a DROID DNA. You have questions. Fire away!

Originally Posted by FishPharm

This is a tad bit off topic but I didn't want to start another thread but lets say we get the DNA, how long do we have if we want to trade it in for a Note2 etc? Last year they had a pretty large window to return the phone.

Currently its still a 14-day window of return. They might extend it to say, 30 days, but nothing has been annonced as of yet.

Re: I have a DROID DNA. You have questions. Fire away!

Hey Phil, I was wondering if you could comment on the brightness level of the DNA's screen at max brightness. I love bright screens and have always kept my phones' "automatic brightness" controls disabled so the phone can always be on max. That was one of the primary reasons I didn't get the GS3. The screen was/is way too dark for me even at maximum brightness. I know the brightness king is the iphone 5 but I was wondering if you found the DNA's screen to be adequately bright? Also one or two reviewers have mentioned a "bluish cast" to the screen. Have you compared the whites of this phone on the google home page to other, competing phones? Are the whites truly white? I'm a current owner of the Gnex and the horrible yellowish cast on what's supposed to be white has driven me nuts.

Re: I have a DROID DNA. You have questions. Fire away!

Originally Posted by PsychDoc

Hey Phil, I was wondering if you could comment on the brightness level of the DNA's screen at max brightness. I love bright screens and have always kept my phones' "automatic brightness" controls disabled so the phone can always be on max. That was one of the primary reasons I didn't get the GS3. The screen was/is way too dark for me even at maximum brightness. I know the brightness king is the iphone 5 but I was wondering if you found the DNA's screen to be adequately bright? Also one or two reviewers have mentioned a "bluish cast" to the screen. Have you compared the whites of this phone on the google home page to other, competing phones? Are the whites truly white? I'm a current owner of the Gnex and the horrible yellowish cast on what's supposed to be white has driven me nuts.

As for your first question, I believe one of the review sites had some sort of comparison with the DNA and 4 other recent phones, and they had them all side by side so you could see the brightness difference between them.
That said, brightness is ALSO subject to variance, but not by too much.
We can probably Google up the panels used by each screen and find the luminance specs for each one.

Edit:
Whites being "truly white" really depends on your eyes.
As an amateur photographer, I deal with white balance all day during post processing.
White is always white, be it yellower (warmer) or bluer (cooler.) If you want "natural" daylight, the measurement is commonly 6500K.
Best bet is to have someone test their phone with a colorimeter to find out, but as my post states, there are huge variances there.

Re: I have a DROID DNA. You have questions. Fire away!

In regards to playing music in the car. All of my phones that I have had have always had a bit of background noise when it comes to charging and listening to my phone through the car stereo at the same time. I am wondering if the separate amps for the headphone jack, or the fact the headphone jack is pumped up a bit would change this. Could you plug it into a car charger, plug in an audio cable to your stereo, and turn the volume up and see if there is any noise? Not a deal breaker but I am just curious if the effect is different on this phone. Note that I am saying turn up the volume on the car to max, but don't play anything, that is the easiest way to tell.

Re: I have a DROID DNA. You have questions. Fire away!

1. Itís certainly a phone that requires a trip to the battery charger at least once, possibly even twice, during the day to make it to the evening.

2. The DNA just doesnít feel as fast as the Nexus 4 in pretty much everything ó despite its very high benchmark scores.

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Android Central Forums

Looking at people that are A.) more reputable *cough android police* and B.) Have spent significant time testing the battery I would say The Verge really screwed that review up. You should never use a phone once and make all assumptions from that one use. Everything I have read is that the battery life is great and WILL last all day. As far as speed, I'm sure it is right on par with the nexus 4, the only difference is that the nexus 4 is bloatfree (my DNA will be the moment the first ROM comes out) and is also on 4.2 instead of 4.1.2. That makes a difference in benchmarks, and also user-ability.

Re: I have a DROID DNA. You have questions. Fire away!

Originally Posted by Imacellist

Looking at people that are A.) more reputable *cough android police* and B.) Have spent significant time testing the battery I would say The Verge really screwed that review up. You should never use a phone once and make all assumptions from that one use. Everything I have read is that the battery life is great and WILL last all day. As far as speed, I'm sure it is right on par with the nexus 4, the only difference is that the nexus 4 is bloatfree (my DNA will be the moment the first ROM comes out) and is also on 4.2 instead of 4.1.2. That makes a difference in benchmarks, and also user-ability.

I'm curious why everyone says The Verge screwed up here.
Their testing methodology may be flawed, as none of us will ever sit there for 4 hours continuously visiting web sites and downloading high resolution photos, but it IS still a repeatable (on their end, I hope) test that had some fairly controlled variables, as any "benchmark" should.

Furthermore, as I noted in my post earlier, although The Verge's review put the battery life at "only" 4 and a half hours, it was 4 and a half hours of continuous usage, with the screen on. (I can't tell, but to me, it only stands to be logical that a benchmark about visiting websites would have the display remain on.)

AndroidPolice, the so-called "more reputable" source gives a different take in their review, and their methodology mirrors the average user much more closely, but is also subject to way more variance.
In this case, since the phone was not continuously used/abused, it went on very strongly for over 27 hours. Very respectable, and most of that was good idle power management.
However, note that even in AndroidPolice's review, the total amount of "Screen on" time remained in the 4 hour range - the same exact range that The Verge arrived at.

Portions of this page are modifications based on work created and shared by the Android Open Source Project
and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 2.5 Attribution License. AndroidCentral is an independent site
that is not affiliated with or endorsed by Google.